There has been continuing debate about the superiority of cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA for obtaining knee joint stability with functional improvement. Many surgeons tend to select the type of prosthesis on the basis of their own training and experience. However, the selection must be based on a great store of knowledge rather than on the surgeon’s preconceptions or preferences. CR TKA may not be feasible in certain settings: posterior cruciate ligament insufficiency, severe deformity, and history of trauma or surgery. The risk of conversion from a CR type prosthesis to a PS type prosthesis might be high in patients with severe flexion contracture, steep posterior slope, and small femoral component size. The above factors should be carefully considered for an appropriate selection of the type of prosthesis. The surgeon should have a clear understanding on the technical differences between CR and PS TKAs. The amount of distal femoral resection, femoral component size, and tibial slope are particularly crucial for successful TKA. Unless they are meticulously determined, stiffness or instability will ensue, which can be difficult to resolve afterwards. There was no notable difference in functional outcome, range of motion, kinematics, and survival rate between CR and PS TKAs in most previous studies. Strict adherence to surgical indications and solid understanding of differences in surgical principles might be more important than the selection of either a CR or PS prosthesis.
- Cruciate retaining
- Posterior stabilized